The first of these contains the FAQs concerning the main document.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The first of these contains the FAQs concerning the main document."

Transcription

1 This document contains the full text of two Texas documents on eyewitness identification and its administration adoption and implementation by Law Enforcement in the State of Texas, written and disseminated by the Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. The first of these contains the FAQs concerning the main document. These questions and answers are extremely important for defense attorneys and should be read carefully. They can form the center of the defense of the eyewitness identification portion of a case. For Prosecutors,... see above. And consider their implications for the administration of justice. The second document contains the Texas Rules on Eyewitness Identification 1

2 Model Policy on Eyewitness Identification Frequently Asked Questions 1. Do I have to adopt the LEMIT model policy? a. No. Article of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that any law enforcement agency of this state or of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state that employs peace officers who conduct photograph or live lineup identification procedures in the routine performance of the officers' official duties to adopt, implement, and as necessary amend a detailed written policy regarding the administration of photograph and live lineup identification procedures. b. The LEMIT model policy was drafted in response to 3(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which required LEMIT to develop, adopt, and disseminate to all law enforcement agencies in this state a model policy regarding the administration of photograph and live lineup identification procedures. c. Thus, agencies are required to adopt a policy pursuant to 2 and LEMIT was required to develop a model policy, pursuant to Some witnesses may refuse to be recorded out of fear for their safety and some victims may be too fragile to be video recorded. Won t this policy put them at risk or further traumatize them? a. No. The welfare of victims and witnesses is paramount. If the victim or witness refuses to be recorded or recording would place the victim or witness at risk, then the procedure can be documented in writing. Under these circumstances, the model policy indicates that the reason for not video or audio recording should be documented. b. Because actual recordings are very persuasive, reluctant victims--who clearly have a stake in the successful prosecution of guilty offenders-- should be informed that actual recordings will likely carry greater weight in court. 2

3 3. Our resources are so limited we don t have sufficient personnel to conduct sequential lineups and photo arrays. Is the sequential method that important? a. Yes. First, conducting an eyewitness identification procedure sequentially (one at a time), as opposed to simultaneously (all at once), requires no additional personnel. b. Second, the research is quite clear that sequential procedures are less likely than simultaneous ones to result in selecting the wrong person. Insofar as the chief purpose of the legislation leading to this policy was to reduce false identifications, we have expressed a clear preference for sequential methods. 4. Our resources are so limited we do not have sufficient personnel to conduct blind administrations of lineups and photo arrays. Is blind administration that important? a. Yes. Decades of research have made it quite clear that people leak information. Despite their best efforts, administrators who are not blind may inadvertently communicate information about the suspect. Although we typically are not aware of subtle cues, even animals are able to pick up on these unintentional cues (see the Clever Hans effect ). b. Photo arrays are much more common than live lineups and, if resources are limited, a properly conducted blinded procedure is just as effective as a blind procedure and it requires no additional resources. c. If the procedure will be a live lineup, then consider using non-sworn personnel or getting assistance from or working in partnership with another agency. 5. Our detectives go to great lengths to establish good rapport with witnesses and victims. Isn t handing off our witness or victim to a blind administrator, whom they don t know or trust, insensitive to their needs? a. No. The administrator of a blind procedure will be just as sensitive to the witness s needs as the detective is. Victims and witnesses regularly interact with criminal justice professionals other than detectives, including physicians and nurses who collect evidence for rape kits; Child Protective Service workers in cases involving children who have been abused; Assistant District Attorneys who must prepare witnesses for court; and a host of others. The decision to conduct a non-blind administration in the interest of maintaining rapport should be undertaken with the knowledge that doing so may sacrifice the validity of the procedure. 3

4 6. Do we have to use a court-certified interpreter every time we conduct an eyewitness identification procedure with someone who speaks a language other than English? a. No. We realize that different communities have varying levels of interpretation resources. Moreover, even in communities where court-certified interpreters are abundant, they may not be easily accessible for a show-up conducted at 3:00 am. Consequently, the policy allows for some flexibility. Administrators should be thoughtful about whom to use for this purpose. 7. Why do we have to allow defense attorneys to attend certain lineups when the policy says nobody should be present who knows which person is the suspect? a. The United States Supreme Court decided the issue that way (see Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 1967). 8. How did LEMIT develop the policy? a. LEMIT convened a working group that canvassed existing policies and research on eyewitness identification to develop a working draft which was then submitted to various stakeholders including: (a) prosecuting attorneys, (b) defense attorneys, (c) a sitting Judge from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, (d) non-governmental organization stakeholders, (e) researchers and scholars who have studied the issue for decades, and (f) law enforcement agencies of various sizes. We received written feedback from many of these stakeholders and many attended a day-long meeting in September at LEMIT. Feedback from this meeting led to revisions of the policy and the revised policy went back out for public review and comment which included a public hearing in Austin on December 1. Based on that round of comments, the policy was revised again and the revised policy was sent to a number of working detectives to provide feedback on clarity and consistency. That feedback led to the final draft. 4

5 Model Policy on Eyewitness Identification I. Purpose The purpose of this model policy is to outline proper protocol for eyewitness identification procedures for photographic, show-up, and live lineup identifications which maximize the reliability of identifications, protect innocent persons, and establish evidence that is reliable and conforms to established legal requirements. II. Policy Eyewitness identifications are a significant component of many criminal investigations. The identification process must be carefully administered to minimize the likelihood of misidentifications. Moreover, constitutional safeguards must be observed in the process. The goal of reducing erroneous convictions can be furthered in many ways. Employing the most rigorous eyewitness identification methods is one way of doing this, but there are others. The eyewitness identification process is only one step in the criminal investigative process, albeit an important one. Corroborative evidence, for example, will lessen the impact of an erroneous eyewitness identification. The more other evidence that is available, the less risk there is of conviction based solely on erroneous eyewitness identification. There is no substitute for a competent and thorough criminal investigation. This model policy was written to provide guidance on eyewitness identification procedures based on credible research on eyewitness memory and best practices designed not only to reduce erroneous eyewitness identification but also to enhance the reliability and objectivity of eyewitness identifications. Evidence-based and best practices surrounding the collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence are addressed as are procedures to be employed where witnesses or victims are unable to read or write, are non-english speaking, or possess limited English language proficiency. III. Procedural Guidelines A. Definitions 1. Blind Procedure A procedure wherein the person administering the live lineup or photo array does not know who the suspect is. 2. Blinded Photo Array Procedure A procedure wherein the person who administers the photo array knows who the suspect is, but each photo is presented so 5

6 that the administrator cannot see or track which photograph is being presented to the witness. 3. Folder Shuffle Method A method of administering a photo array such that the administrator cannot see or track which photograph is being presented to the witness until after the procedure is completed. This method is employed when a blind procedure is not possible. 4. Fillers Non-suspect photographs or persons. Fillers are selected to both fit the description of the perpetrator provided by the witness and to ensure that no individual or photo stands out. 5. Illiterate Person An individual who speaks and understands English but cannot read and write in English. 6. Interpreter An interpreter is a person who is fluent in English and the language of the witness or victim and who facilitates communication between two parties in two different languages. The term includes persons who facilitate communication with persons who are deaf, hearing impaired, or speaking impaired. 7. Live lineup An identification procedure in which a group of persons is displayed to the witness or victim in order to identify or exclude the suspect. 8. Person with Limited English Proficiency An individual who is unable to communicate effectively in English with a level of fluency that is typical of native English speakers. Such a person may have difficulty speaking, reading, or writing in English and includes persons who can comprehend English, but are physically unable to talk or write. 9. Photo Array An identification procedure in which a series of photographs is displayed to the witness or victim in order to identify or exclude the suspect. 10. Sequential Live Lineup or Photo Array An identification procedure in which the persons in the live lineup or the photographs in the photo array are displayed one by one (sequentially). 11. Show-up An identification procedure in which a single suspect is shown to a victim or witness soon after the commission of a crime for the purpose of identifying or eliminating the suspect as the perpetrator. 12. Witness Certification Statement A written statement that is read out loud to the witness or victim describing the procedures of the identification process. B. Selecting the Best Identification Method 6

7 1. Photo arrays are preferred over other techniques because: (a) they can be controlled better, (b) nervousness can be minimized, and (c) they are easier to manage logistically. 2. Because they involve multiple persons under relatively controlled circumstances, a properly conducted live lineup, like a properly conducted photo array, is preferable to a show-up. 3. Because they are highly suggestive, show-ups are vulnerable to challenges to their validity. Consequently, a show-up should be employed only where other indicia of guilt are present (e.g., suspect located relatively close in time and place to the crime). 4. Because witnesses may be influenced, however unintentionally, by cues from the person administering the procedure, a blind administrator should be used. This can be achieved through the use of a blind procedure or a blinded photo array procedure (e.g. the folder shuffle method). 5. Because research shows the sequential presentation of live lineups and photo arrays is less likely to result in misidentification and carry very little risk of increasing the likelihood of failure to identify the suspect, a sequential presentation should be used. C. Selecting Fillers All persons in the photo array or live lineup should be of the same sex and race and should be reasonably similar in age, height, weight, and general appearance. Ideally, the characteristics of the filler should be consistent with the description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es). Where there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es), where the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, where a witness has provided a highly detailed description, or where the witness s description of the perpetrator or the suspect has a highly distinctive feature, fillers should be chosen so that no person stands out in the live lineup or photo array. D. Explaining that the Perpetrator May or May Not Be Present Because witnesses may be under pressure to identify a suspect, they should be informed that the suspect may or may not be present in a live lineup or photo array and that the person presented in a show-up may or may not be the perpetrator. E. Explaining that the Investigation will Continue 7

8 The administrator should also explain to the witness that the investigation will continue, regardless of whether an identification is made, as another way of alleviating pressure on the witness to identify a suspect. F. Witness Contamination Precautions must be taken to ensure that witnesses do not encounter suspects or fillers at any time before or after the identification procedure. Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once. When showing a different suspect to the same witness, do not reuse the same fillers from a previous live lineup or photo array shown to that witness. Witnesses should not be allowed to confer with each other before, during, or after the identification procedure. Ensure that no one who knows the suspect s identity is present during live lineup or photo array procedure. In some live lineups, exceptions must be made to allow for the presence of defense counsel. G. Documenting the Procedure In order to strengthen the evidentiary value of the identification procedure, it should be documented in full. Video documentation is the preferred method. Audio recording is the preferred alternative. If neither method is employed, then the reason for not video or audio recording should be documented. IV. Sample Standard Operating Procedures The procedures which follow have been designed to: (a) reduce erroneous eyewitness identifications, (b) enhance the reliability and objectivity of eyewitness identifications, (c) collect and preserve eyewitness evidence properly, (d) respect the needs and wishes of victims and witnesses, and (d) address the needs of witnesses with limited English proficiency, where applicable. In order to choose among the various identification methods, a brief description of each method follows in order of most preferred method to least preferred. Once the appropriate method is selected, the administrator should go directly to the Sample Standard Operating Procedures for that particular method. In any given situation only set of Sample Standard Operating Procedures applies. A. Descriptions of Eyewitness Identification Methods 1. Sequential, Blind Photo Array photo arrays where the photographs are presented one at a time to the witness or victim by a person who does not know who the suspect is. This method requires a preparer who may be familiar with the case and an administrator who does not know the identity of the suspect. 8

9 2. Sequential, Blinded Photo Array photo arrays where the photographs are presented one at a time to the witness or victim by a person who knows who the suspect is, but who takes steps (putting the photographs in folders and shuffling them) to avoid knowledge of which person the witness or victim is looking at. This method typically involves an administrator who is familiar with the case and knows who the suspect is. 3. Sequential Live Lineup live lineups where the persons in the live lineup are presented one at a time to the witness or victim. This method requires a preparer who may be familiar with the case and an administrator who does not know the identity of the suspect. 4. Show-up procedure where the witness or victim is presented with a single suspect and asked to identify whether that suspect is the perpetrator. This procedure can be carried out by any officer. 9

10 B. Sample Standard Operating Procedures for Sequential, Blind Photo Array Administrations 1. Preparation a. Designating a Preparer Preparing the photo array should be undertaken by someone other than the person who will administer the photo array. Ideally, the investigating officer will prepare the photo array as this ensures that others who might be involved in the case are not used as fillers. Moreover, because the investigating officer knows who the suspect is, he or she should not be conducting the actual administration of the photo array. b. Selecting Suspect Photograph If multiple photos of the suspect are available, choose the photo that most resembles the suspect s appearance at the time of the crime. Do not include more than one photograph of the same suspect. If you do not know what the suspect looked like at the time of the crime, choose the photo that most resembles the victim s or witness s description of the perpetrator. If there are multiple suspects, include only one suspect s photo in the array. c. Selecting Fillers All persons in the photo array should be of the same sex and race and should be reasonably similar in age, height, weight, and general appearance. Ideally, the characteristics of the filler should be consistent with the description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es). Where there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es), where the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should be chosen so that no person stands out in the photo array. Do not mix color and black and white photos. Use photos of the same size and basic composition. Never mix mug shots with other types of photographs. d. Choosing Number of Fillers Wherever possible, include a minimum of five fillers. Because increasing the number of fillers tends to increase the reliability of the procedure, one may have more than the minimum number of fillers. 10

11 e. Ensuring Similarity Assess the array to ensure that no person stands out from the rest. Cover any portions of the photographs that provide identifying information on the suspect and similarly cover other photographs used in the array. f. Placing Subject Photographs in Order 1) Place a filler in the lead position. 2) Place the remaining photographs which will comprise the photo array in random order. 3) Place two blank photographs at the end (blanks on the same type of photographic paper as the actual photographs but which will not be shown to the witness; this is intended to cause the witness to think there may still be photographs to view in order to reduce pressure to choose what the witness may presume to be the last photograph). g. Presenting the Photo Array to the Independent Administrator Present the ordered photo array to the independent administrator. Do not tell the independent administrator which position the suspect is in. 2. Administration The administrator of the photo array presentation should be an independent administrator who does not know the identity of the suspect and the witness should be informed of this. In a blind procedure, no one should be present who knows the suspect s identity. a. Blinded Administration If the blind procedure described above is not followed, then the photo array administrator should document the reason why and the administrator should be blinded. That is, he or she should conduct the photo array in a manner such that he or she does not know which person in the array the witness is looking at. There is a separate sample standard operating procedure for blinded photo array administration in this model policy immediately following this sample standard operating procedure. b. Instruct Witness Each witness should be instructed outside the presence of the other witnesses. The independent administrator should give the witness a written copy of the 11

12 following Witness Certification Statement and should read the instruction statement aloud at the beginning of each identification procedure: In a moment, I am going to show you a series of photos. The person who committed the crime may or may not be included. I do not know whether the person being investigated is included. Even if you identify someone during this procedure, I will continue to show you all photos in the series. The investigation will continue whether or not you make an identification. Keep in mind that things like hair styles, beards, and mustaches can be easily changed and that complexion colors may look slightly different in photographs. You should not feel you have to make an identification. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator. The photos will be shown to you one at a time. Take as much time as you need to look at each one. After each photo, I will ask you "Is this the person you saw [insert description of act here]?" Take your time answering the question. If you answer "Yes," I will then ask you, "In your own words, can you describe how certain you are?" Because you are involved in an ongoing investigation, in order to prevent damaging the investigation, you should avoid discussing this identification procedure or its results. Do you understand the way the photo array procedure will be conducted and the other instructions I have given you? c. Document Consent to Participate Witnesses should then be asked to read the following additional paragraph and sign and date below. I have read these instructions, or they have been read to me, and I understand the instructions. I am prepared to review the photographs, and I will follow the instructions provided on this form. a) Some witnesses may decline to sign. When a witness declines to sign, it is sufficient for the investigating officer to document that the witness was appropriately instructed. 12

13 d. Presentation of Photographs Present each photo to the witness separately (one at a time), in order. When the witness is finished viewing the photo, have the witness hand the photo back. e. Question Witness After the witness has looked at a photo and handed it back to you, ask: Is this the person you saw [insert description of act here]?" If the witness answers "Yes," ask the witness, In your own words, can you describe how certain you are? f. Document Witness s Responses Document the witness s response using the witness s own words. Have the witness complete the appropriate section of the Witness Certification Statement to reflect the outcome of the procedure. g. Show All Photographs Even if the witness makes an identification, show the witness the next photo until you have gone through all the photographs. If a witness asks why he or she must view the rest of the photos, despite already making an identification, simply tell the witness that to assure objectivity and reliability, the witness is required to view all of the photographs. h. Avoid Feedback During the Procedure Do not give the witness any feedback regarding the individual selected or comment on the outcome of the identification procedure in any way. Be aware that witnesses may perceive such things as unintentional voice inflection or prolonged eye contact, in addition to off-hand words or phrases, as messages regarding their selection. Avoid casual conversation comments such as very good. Be polite but purposeful when you speak. i. Additional Viewings Only upon request of the witness, the witness may view the photo array again after the first photo array procedure has been completed. If the witness requests an additional viewing, the photo array administrator should present the entire photo array in the same order as the original presentation, a second time. If this occurs, it must be documented. The photo array administrator should never suggest an additional viewing to the witness. It is recommended that the witness not be allowed to view the photo array more than two times. 13

14 j. Subsequent Use of Materials Ensure that if the witness writes on, marks, or in any way alters identification materials, those materials are not used in subsequent procedures. k. Multiple Identification Procedures With Same Witness Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once. l. Multiple Identification Procedures With Different Witness If you need to show the same suspect to a new witness, have the preparer remix the photo array and renumber them accordingly. m. Multiple Suspects When there are multiple suspects, a separate photo array should be conducted for each suspect. There should not be more than one suspect per photo array. n. Reuse of Fillers When showing a different suspect to the same witness, do not reuse the same fillers from a previous array shown to that witness. o. Contact Among Witnesses To the extent possible, prevent witnesses from conferring with each other before, during, and after the photo array procedure. p. Identification of Special Features Only after an identification is made, a follow-up interview should assess any relevant factors that support the identification, such as: special facial features, hair, marks, etc. 3. Special Procedures are Required for Illiterate Persons or Persons Who Possess Limited English Proficiency a. Be Alert to People Who do not Speak English or Possess Limited English Proficiency Given the diversity of communities, police officers may encounter persons who do not speak English or who possess limited English proficiency in the course of a criminal investigation. When presented with this situation, officers should carefully consider the ethical and legal ramifications of how to handle the case when there is a language barrier. 14

15 b. Using an Interpreter Unless the administrator speaks the victim s or witness s language fluently, an interpreter should be used for persons who do not speak English. The interpreter shall sign the Witness Instruction Statement on obtaining consent of a non- English speaking person to assist in the eyewitness identification process. Law enforcement personnel should consider arranging for an interpreter if a person interviewed: 1) Is unable to communicate in English 2) Has a limited understanding of English 3) Is deaf, hearing impaired, or speaking impaired 4) Is otherwise physically challenged to communicate in English c. Review and Explain Forms If the person is unable to read, the administrator, in the presence of the witness, will give the explanation, read any forms, and obtain consent and acknowledge the consent on the Witness Certification Statement, stating why the person was unable to sign the form. 4. Documentation In order to strengthen the evidentiary value of the administration it should be documented in full. Video documentation (with audio) is the preferred method. Audio recording is the preferred alternative. If neither method is employed, then the reason for not video or audio recording should be documented. Preserve the photo array, together with all information about the identification process. 15

16 C. Sample Standard Operating Procedures for Sequential, Blinded Photo Array Administrations 1. Preparation a. Select Suspect Photograph If multiple photos of the suspect are available, choose the photo that most resembles the suspect s appearance at the time of the crime. Do not include more than one photograph of the same suspect. If you do not know what the suspect looked like at the time of the crime, choose the photo that most resembles the victim s or witness s description of the perpetrator. If there are multiple suspects, include only one suspect s photo in the array. b. Selecting Fillers All persons in the photo array should be of the same sex and race and should be reasonably similar in age, height, weight, and general appearance. Ideally, the characteristics of the filler should be consistent with the description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es). Where there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es), where the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should be chosen so that no person stands out in the photo array. Do not mix color and black and white photos. Use photos of the same size and basic composition. Never mix mug shots with other types of photographs. c. Choosing Number of Fillers Whenever possible, include a minimum of five fillers. Because increasing the number of fillers tends to increase the reliability of the procedure, one may have more than the minimum number of fillers. d. Ensuring Similarity Assess the array to ensure that no person stands out from the rest. Cover any portions of the photographs that provide identifying information on the suspect and similarly cover other photographs used in the array. e. Placing Subject Photographs in Order 1) Place a filler in a folder and set it aside for placement in the lead position. 16

17 2) Place the remaining photographs which will comprise the photo array in separate folders and place them in random order (mix them up) so you do not know which photograph is in which folder. 3) Take the folder you set aside in step 1), above and place it in the lead position. 4) Place two empty folders at the end. 5) Number the folders. 2. Administration a. Blinded Administration The purpose of a blinded administration is to conduct the photo array in a manner such that the administrator does not know which person in the array the witness is looking at. b. Instruct Witness Each witness should be instructed outside the presence of the other witnesses. The blinded administrator should give the witness a written copy of the following Witness Instruction Statement and should read the instruction statement aloud at the beginning of each identification procedure: The folders in front of you contain photos. In a moment, I am going to ask you to look at the photos. The person who committed the crime may or may not be included in the photos. I do not know whether the person being investigated is included. Although I placed the photos into the folders, I have shuffled the folders so that right now I do not know which folder contains a particular photo. Even if you identify someone during this procedure, I will continue to show you all photos in the series. The investigation will continue whether or not you make an identification. Keep in mind that things like hair styles, beards, and mustaches can be easily changed and that complexion colors may look slightly different in photographs. 17

18 You should not feel you have to make an identification. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator. You will look at the photos one at a time. When you open a folder, please open it in a manner that does not allow me to see the photo inside the folder. Take as much time as you need to look at each one. When you have finished looking at a photo, close the folder and hand it to me. I will then ask you, Is this the person you saw [insert description of act here]?" Take your time answering the question. If you answer "Yes," I will then ask you, "In your own words, can you describe how certain you are?" Because you are involved in an ongoing investigation, in order to prevent compromising the investigation, you should avoid discussing this identification procedure or its results. Do you understand the way the photo array procedure will be conducted and the other instructions I have given you? c. Document Consent to Participate Witnesses should then be asked to read the following additional paragraph and sign and date below. I have read these instructions, or they have been read to me, and I understand the instructions. I am prepared to review the photographs, and I will follow the instructions provided on this form. 1) Some witnesses may decline to sign. When a witness declines to sign, it is sufficient for the investigating officer to document that the witness was appropriately instructed. d. Present Folders Present each folder to the witness separately (one at a time), in order. The blinded administrator should not be in a position to view the photographs while the witness is viewing the photographs. The eyewitness should be the only person viewing the photographs. When the witness is finished viewing the photo, have the witness hand the folder back. e. Question Witness After the witness has looked at a photo and handed it back to you, ask: Is this the person you saw [insert description of act here]?" If the witness answers 18

19 "Yes," ask the witness, In your own words, can you describe how certain you are? f. Document Witness s Responses Document the witness s response using the witness s own words. Have the witness complete the appropriate section of the Witness Certification Statement to reflect the outcome of the procedure. g. Show All Folders with Photos Show all folders containing photos to the witness. Even if the witness makes an identification, show the witness the next photo until you have gone through all the photographs. If a witness asks why he or she must view the rest of the photos, despite already making an identification, simply tell the witness that to assure objectivity and reliability, the witness is required to view all of the photographs. h. Avoid Feedback During the Procedure Do not give the witness any feedback regarding the individual selected or comment on the outcome of the identification procedure. Be aware that witnesses may perceive such things as unintentional voice inflection or prolonged eye contact, in addition to off-hand words or phrases, as messages regarding their selection. Avoid casual conversation comments such as very good. Be polite but purposeful when you speak. i. Additional Viewings Only upon request of the witness, the witness may view the photo array again after the first photo array procedure has been completed. If the witness requests an additional viewing, the photo array administrator should present the entire photo array in the same order as the original presentation, a second time. If this occurs, it must be documented. The photo array administrator should never suggest an additional viewing to the witness. It is recommended that the witness not be allowed to view the photo array more than two times. j. Subsequent Use of Materials Ensure that if the witness writes on, marks, or in any way alters identification materials, those materials are not used in subsequent procedures. k. Multiple Identification Procedures with Same Witness 19

20 Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once. l. Multiple Identification Procedures with Different Witness If you need to show the same suspect to a new witness, remix the photo array as before and renumber them accordingly. m. Multiple Suspects When there are multiple suspects, a separate photo array should be conducted for each suspect. There should not be more than one suspect per photo array. n. Reuse of Fillers When showing a different suspect to the same witness, do not reuse the same fillers from a previous array shown to that witness. o. Contact Among Witnesses To the extent possible, prevent witnesses from conferring with each other before, during, and after the photo array procedure. p. Identification of Special Features Only after an identification is made, a follow-up interview should assess any relevant factors that support the identification, such as: special facial features, hair, marks, etc. 3. Special Procedures are Required for Illiterate Persons or Persons Who Possess Limited English Proficiency a. Be Alert to People Who do not Speak English or Possess Limited English Proficiency Given the diversity of communities, police officers may encounter persons who do not speak English or who possess limited English proficiency in the course of a criminal investigation. Where presented with this situation, officers should carefully consider the ethical and legal ramifications of how to handle the case when there is a language barrier. b. Using an Interpreter Unless the administrator speaks the victim s or witness s language fluently, an interpreter should be used for persons who do not speak English. The interpreter shall sign the Witness Certification Statement on obtaining consent of a non- 20

21 English speaking person to assist in the eyewitness identification process. Law enforcement personnel should consider arranging for an interpreter if a person interviewed: 1) Is unable to communicate in English 2) Has a limited understanding of English 3) Is deaf, hearing impaired, or speaking impaired 4) Is otherwise physically challenged to communicate in English c. Review and Explain Forms If the person is unable to read, the administrator, in the presence of the witness, will give the explanation, read any forms, and obtain consent and acknowledge the consent on the Witness Instruction Statement, stating why the person was unable to sign the form. 4. Documentation In order to strengthen the evidentiary value of the administration it should be documented in full. Video documentation (with audio) is the preferred method. Audio recording is the preferred alternative. If neither method is employed, then the reason for not video or audio recording should be documented. Preserve the photo array, together with all information about the identification process. 21

22 D. Sample Standard Operating Procedures for Sequential, Blind Live lineups 1. Preparation a. Designating a Preparer Preparing the live lineup should be undertaken by someone other than the person who will administer the live lineup. Ideally, the investigating officer will prepare the live lineup as this ensures that others who might be involved in the case are not used as fillers. Moreover, because the investigating officer knows who the suspect is, he or she should not conduct the actual administration of the live lineup b. Selecting Fillers All persons in the live lineup should be of the same sex and race and should be reasonably similar in age, height, weight, and general appearance. Ideally, the characteristics of the filler should be consistent with the description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es). Where there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness(es),where the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should be chosen so that no person stands out in the live lineup. c. Choosing Number of Fillers Whenever possible, include a minimum of five fillers. Because increasing the number of fillers tends to increase the reliability of the procedure, one may have more than the minimum number of fillers. d. Ensuring Similarity Assess the lineup to ensure that no person stands out from the rest. e. Placing the Subjects in Order Place a filler in the lead position and place the remaining persons who will comprise the live lineup in random order. f. Presenting the Live lineup to Administrator Present the ordered live lineup to the administrator. Do not tell the administrator which position the suspect is in. 2. Administration 22

23 The administrator of the live lineup should be an independent administrator who does not know the identity of the suspect and the witness should be informed of this. In a blind procedure, no one should be present who knows the suspect s identity. In some live lineups, exceptions must be made to allow for the presence of defense counsel. Once the live lineup commences, defense counsel s role is limited to that of observer. a. Instruct Witness Each witness should be instructed outside the presence of the other witnesses. The live lineup administrator should give the witness a written copy of the following Witness Certification Statement and should read the instruction statement aloud at the beginning of each identification procedure: In a moment, I am going to show you a series of individuals. The person who committed the crime may or may not be included. I do not know whether the person being investigated is included. The investigation will continue whether or not you make an identification. Even if you identify someone during this procedure, I will continue to show you all individuals in the series. Keep in mind that things like hair styles, beards, and mustaches can be easily changed. You should not feel you have to make an identification. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator. The individuals will be shown to you one at a time. Take as much time as you need to look at each one. After each individual, I will ask you "Is this the person you saw [Insert description of act]?" Take your time answering the question. If you answer "Yes," I will then ask you, "In your own words, can you describe how certain you are?" Because you are involved in an ongoing investigation, in order to prevent damaging the investigation, you should avoid discussing this identification procedure or its results. Do you understand the way the lineup procedure will be conducted and the other instructions I have given you? b. Document Consent to Participate 23

24 Witnesses should then be asked to read the following additional paragraph and sign and date below. I have read these instructions, or they have been read to me, and I understand the instructions. I am prepared to view the individuals who will be presented to me, and I will follow the instructions provided on this form. 1) Some witnesses may decline to sign. When a witness declines to sign, it is sufficient for the investigating officer to document that the witness was appropriately instructed. c. Presentation of Subjects Begin with all live lineup participants out of the view of the witness. Present each subject one at a time in the order presented to the administrator by the preparer. Present each individual to the witness separately, removing those previously shown from the field of view. d. Question Witness After each individual is shown, ask the witness: "Is this the person you saw [insert description of act]?" If the witness answers "Yes," ask the witness, "In your own words, can you describe how certain you are?" Document the witness s response using the witness s own words. e. Document Witness s Responses Document the witness s response using the witness s own words. Have the witness complete the appropriate section of the Witness Certification Statement to reflect the outcome of the procedure. f. Show Every Subject Even if the witness makes an identification, show the witness the next subject until all subjects have been shown. If a witness asks why he or she must view the rest of the subjects despite already making an identification, simply tell the witness that to assure objectivity and reliability, the witness is required to view all of the subjects. g. Consistency of Actions Ensure that any identification actions (e.g., speaking, moving) are performed by all members of the live lineup. h. Avoid Feedback During the Procedure 24

25 Do not give the witness any feedback regarding the individual selected or comment on the outcome of the identification procedure in any way. Be aware that witnesses may perceive such things as unintentional voice inflection or prolonged eye contact, in addition to off-hand words or phrases, as messages regarding their selection. Avoid casual comments such as very good. Be polite but purposeful when you speak. i. Additional Viewings Only upon request of the witness, the witness may view the lineup again after the first live lineup has been completed. If the witness requests an additional viewing, the independent administrator should present the entire live lineup a second time. If this occurs, it must be documented. The live lineup administrator should never suggest additional viewing. It is recommended that the witness not be allowed to view the live lineup more than two times. j. Multiple Identification Procedures With Same Witness Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once. k. Multiple Identification Procedures With Different Witness If you need to show the same suspect to a new witness, have the preparer change the order of the subjects in the lineup. l. Multiple Suspects When there are multiple suspects, a separate live lineup should be conducted for each suspect. There should not be more than one suspect per lineup. m. Reuse of Fillers When showing a different suspect to the same witness, do not reuse the same fillers from a previous lineup shown to that witness. n. Contact Among Witnesses To the extent possible, prevent witnesses from conferring with each other before, during, and after the live lineup procedure. o. Contact between Witnesses, Suspects, and Fillers 25

26 Take precautions to ensure that witnesses do not encounter suspects or fillers at any time before or after the identification procedure. p. Identification of Special Features Only after an identification is made, a follow-up interview should assess any relevant factors that support the identification, such as: special facial features, hair, marks, etc. 3. Special Procedures are Required for Illiterate Persons or Persons Who Possess Limited English Proficiency a. Be Alert to People Who do not Speak English or Possess Limited English Proficiency Given the diversity of communities, police officers may encounter persons who do not speak English or who possess limited English proficiency in the course of a criminal investigation. Where presented with this situation, officers should carefully consider the ethical and legal ramifications of how to handle the case when there is a language barrier. b. Using an Interpreter Unless the administrator speaks the victim s or witness s language fluently, an interpreter should be used for persons who do not speak English. The interpreter shall sign the Witness Certification Statement on obtaining consent of a non- English speaking person to assist in the eyewitness identification process. Law enforcement personnel should consider arranging for an interpreter if a person interviewed: 1) Is unable to communicate in English 2) Has a limited understanding of English 3) Is deaf, hearing impaired or speaking impaired 4) Is otherwise physically challenged to communicate in English c. Review and Explain Forms If the person is unable to read or write, the administrator, in the presence of the witness, will give the explanation, read any forms, and obtain consent and acknowledge the consent on the Witness Certification Statement, stating why the person was unable to sign the form. 26

27 4. Documentation In order to strengthen the evidentiary value of the administration, it should be documented in full. Video documentation (with audio) is the preferred method. Audio recording is the preferred alternative. If neither method is employed, then the reason for not video or audio recording should be documented. A still photograph of each individual in the live lineup should be taken and details of all persons present during the live lineup should be documented. 27

28 E. Sample Standard Operating Procedures for Show-ups Show-ups should be avoided whenever possible because of their suggestiveness. Photo arrays and live lineups are preferred. However, where circumstances require the prompt display of a suspect to a witness, the following procedures should be followed to minimize potential suggestiveness. 1. Preparation a. Contact Among Witnesses Separate witnesses and do not allow communication between them before or after conducting a show-up. b. Document Witness s Description of Perpetrator Document the witness s description of the perpetrator prior to conducting the show-up. c. Temporal and Spatial Proximity to the Offense Use show-ups only where the suspect is detained within a reasonably short time frame following the offense and is found in relatively close proximity to it. Although this is dependent on the individual circumstances of each case, courts have generally held that a two-hour time lapse is acceptable. d. Transport Witness to Suspect Transport the witness to the location of the suspect whenever practical, rather than bringing the suspect to the witness. The suspect may be taken to a location where the witness can view the suspect for possible identification. e. Do not Return Suspect to Crime Scene Suspects should not be taken to the scene of the crime. f. Disclosure of Location of Witness s Home Consider carefully whether to take the suspect to the witness s or victim s home. g. Avoid Appearance of Guilt Do not conduct show-ups when the suspect is in a patrol car, handcuffed, or physically restrained by police officers unless such protective measures are necessary to ensure safety. 28

29 h. Minimize Reliance on Show-ups If one witness identifies the suspect, you are strongly urged to use a photo array or a live lineup with any remaining witnesses. 2. Administration a. Instruct Witness Each witness should be instructed outside the presence of the other witnesses. The show-up administrator should give the witness a written copy of the following Witness Certification Statement and should read the instruction statement aloud at the beginning of the show-up identification procedure: In a moment, I am going to show you a person who may or may not be the person who committed the crime. You should not feel you have to make an identification. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator. The investigation will continue whether or not you make an identification. Because you are involved in an ongoing investigation, in order to prevent damaging the investigation, you should avoid discussing this identification procedure or its results. Do you understand the procedure and the instructions I have given you? b. Presentation of Suspect and Questioning of Witness Present the suspect to the witness and ask the witness whether the person they are looking at is the person they saw commit the crime. If the witness answers "Yes," ask the witness to describe, in their own words, how certain they are. c. Document Witness s Response Document the witness s response using the witness s own words. d. Multiple Identification Procedures With Same Witness Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once. 29

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES The Allegheny County Chiefs of Police Association EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES An Allegheny A County Criminal Justice Advisory Board Project In Partnership With The Allegheny County District Attorney

More information

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS:

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS: State Bar of Michigan Eyewitness Identification Task Force LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS: A Policy Writing Guide 2012 Contents OVERVIEW...3 A Note on Terminology...3 PURPOSE...4 Goals...4

More information

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION MODEL POLICY

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION MODEL POLICY EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION MODEL POLICY I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures using photographic lineups, live lineups and showups. II.

More information

LAST UPDATE: POLICY SOURCE: Chief of Police TOTAL PAGES: 7

LAST UPDATE: POLICY SOURCE: Chief of Police TOTAL PAGES: 7 ONALASKA POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY ISSUE DATE: 10-28-2005 TITLE: Eyewitness Identification LAST UPDATE: 10-28-05 SECTION: Operations TEXT NAME: Eyewitness POLICY SOURCE: Chief of Police TOTAL PAGES: 7 AUTHOR:

More information

Virginia Beach Police Department General Order Chapter 8 - Criminal Investigations

Virginia Beach Police Department General Order Chapter 8 - Criminal Investigations Operational General Order 8.03 Lineups PAGE 1 OF 6 SUBJECT Virginia Beach Police Department General Order Chapter 8 - Criminal Investigations DISTRIBUTION ALL BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE: CALEA:

More information

DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT

DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT DELMAR POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy 7.42 Eyewitness Identifications Effective Date: 04/06/16 Replaces: 2-14.1 Approved: Ivan Barkley Chief of Police Reference: N/A I. POLICY Eyewitness identification is a

More information

SECTION: OPERATIONS OPR-229A EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS

SECTION: OPERATIONS OPR-229A EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS SECTION: OPERATIONS OPR-229A CHAPTER: DIRECTIVE: FIELD PROCEDURES 229A.01 PURPOSE To establish a policy for the preparation and presentation of photographic and in-person lineups. 229A.02 DEFINITIONS Lineup

More information

Contemporary Issues in Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Working Group EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy February 2016

Contemporary Issues in Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Working Group EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy February 2016 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Working Group EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION Model Policy February 2016 This policy is intended to allow for the individual needs of law enforcement

More information

Identification Procedures

Identification Procedures CITY OF MADISON POLICE DEPARTMENT Identification Procedures Eff. Date 05/12/2017 Purpose This outlines procedures to be used for conducting all identification procedures (show-ups, photo arrays and in-person

More information

East Haven Police Department

East Haven Police Department East Haven Police Department Type of Directive: Policies & Procedures No. 417.2 Subject/Title: Issue Date: Eye Witness Identification July 29, 2014 Effective Date: References/Attachments: Connecticut Public

More information

Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association LINE-UP AND SHOW-UP PROCEDURES (Eyewitness Identification) MODEL POLICY GENERAL ORDER

Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association LINE-UP AND SHOW-UP PROCEDURES (Eyewitness Identification) MODEL POLICY GENERAL ORDER Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association LINE-UP AND SHOW-UP PROCEDURES (Eyewitness Identification) MODEL POLICY GENERAL ORDER NUMBER POLICY NAME CALEA STANDARD PAGES 340.10 LINE-UP AND SHOW-UP PROCEDURES

More information

THURMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT

THURMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT Subject: Eyewitness Identification Page No. 1 THURMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER Authority: Chief of Police Subject: Eyewitness Identification Accreditation Standard: Chapter 42 Date Issued: March

More information

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION POLICY & PROCEDURE NO. 1.12 ISSUE DATE: 11/21/13 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/21/13 MASSACHUSETTS POLICE ACCREDITATION STANDARDS REFERENCED: 1.2.3, 42.2.3(e), 42.1.11, 42.2.12 REVISION DATE: 08/09/14 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

More information

TYPE OF ORDER NUMBER/SERIES ISSUE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE General Order /3/2013 5/5/2013

TYPE OF ORDER NUMBER/SERIES ISSUE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE General Order /3/2013 5/5/2013 TYPE OF ORDER NUMBER/SERIES ISSUE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE General Order 360.08 5/3/2013 5/5/2013 SUBJECT TITLE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DATES Eyewitness Identification: Photographic Line-Ups, N/A Physical Line-Ups

More information

R.C Page 1. (1) Administrator means the person conducting a photo lineup or live lineup.

R.C Page 1. (1) Administrator means the person conducting a photo lineup or live lineup. R.C. 2933.83 Page 1 Baldwin's Ohio Revised Code Annotated Currentness Title XXIX. Crimes--Procedure (Refs & Annos) Chapter 2933. Peace Warrants; Search Warrants (Refs & Annos) Evidentiary Provisions 2933.83

More information

COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Subject: LINE-UPS AND SHOW-UPS Date of Issue: 02-10-2011 Number of Pages: 6 Policy No. I075 Distribution: ALL Review Date: Revision Date: I. Purpose

More information

New York State Photo Identification Guidelines

New York State Photo Identification Guidelines 1. Introduction There are various ways to conduct a fair and reliable identification procedure. The guidelines below outline how a neutral, fair and reliable identification procedure can be conducted by

More information

ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JOSEPH A. FOSTER ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 33 CAPITOL STREET CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6397 ANNM. RICE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FROM: DATE: RE All Law Enforcement Agencies

More information

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.

Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court. Eyewitness identification is evidence received from a witness who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court. Eyewitness identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented

More information

NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES BENCHBOOK VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION

NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES BENCHBOOK VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION VOIR DIRE ON PRETRIAL AND IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION Robert Farb (UNC School of Government, Mar. 2015) Contents I. Introduction... 1 II. Findings of Fact... 2 III. Conclusions of Law... 7 IV. Order... 9 V.

More information

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM ACT

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM ACT EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM ACT North Carolina Department of Justice Criminal Justice Standards Division UPDATE MATERIAL March 1, 2008 (Subject to periodic changes) NC EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM

More information

Eyewitness refers to an individual who personally witnessed the crime under investigation or observed the suspect in the area of the crime scene.

Eyewitness refers to an individual who personally witnessed the crime under investigation or observed the suspect in the area of the crime scene. UW Madison Police Department Policy: 42.2 SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIONS-OPERATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: 06/01/10 REVISED DATE: 02/15/17; 11/16/17; 03/23/18 REVIEWED DATE: 08/15/15 STANDARD: CALEA 42.2.1 42.2.12 IACLEA

More information

JAN shown that eyewitness identification procedures currently used. by law enforcement officials may lead to faulty eyewitness

JAN shown that eyewitness identification procedures currently used. by law enforcement officials may lead to faulty eyewitness THE SENATE TWENTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE, STATE OF HAWAII JAN 0 A BILL FOR AN ACT SaBa NO. 0. RELATING TO RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: SECTION. The legislature

More information

REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Honorable Members of the Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee FROM: Sharon M. Tso Chief Legislative Analyst SUBJECT:

More information

Eyewitness Identification. Leader Guide

Eyewitness Identification. Leader Guide Leader Guide Georgia Police Academy August 2008 Acknowledgements Development of this program Trademarks & Copyright Acknowledgements PowerPoint is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Official

More information

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY FERLO, STOUT, GREENLEAF, COSTA, KITCHEN, STACK AND FONTANA, APRIL 9, 2007 AN ACT

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY FERLO, STOUT, GREENLEAF, COSTA, KITCHEN, STACK AND FONTANA, APRIL 9, 2007 AN ACT PRINTER'S NO. 814 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 713 Session of 2007 INTRODUCED BY FERLO, STOUT, GREENLEAF, COSTA, KITCHEN, STACK AND FONTANA, APRIL 9, 2007 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY,

More information

BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY SENATE AND HOUSE S Page 1 of 11. Subject: Crimes; innocence protection; eyewitness identification

BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY SENATE AND HOUSE S Page 1 of 11. Subject: Crimes; innocence protection; eyewitness identification 2014 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 S.184 Introduced by Senators Sears, Ashe, and Benning Referred to Committee on Judiciary Date: January 7, 2014 Subject: Crimes; innocence

More information

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00706

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00706 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff : CASE NO. 2013 CR 00706 vs. : Judge McBride DYLAN SCOTT TUTTLE : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant : Catherine Adams, assistant prosecuting

More information

A NEW STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

A NEW STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS A NEW STRATEGY FOR PREVENTING WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS After seven and a half hours in police custody, including a several hour polygraph test over three sessions that police informed him he was failing, 16

More information

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE DATE: 04/04/2014 NUMBER: SUBJECT: 4.02 LEGAL EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION RELATED POLICY: 4.02 ORIGINATING DIVISION: OPERATIONAL SUPPORT NEW PROCEDURE: PROCEDURAL CHANGE:

More information

SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION

SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE NUMBER: 402 EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION 402.1 PURPOSE: To establish a uniform procedure for the conduct of stand-up line-ups, photo array line-ups, and other

More information

AN ACT BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA1.AAChapter 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, is

AN ACT BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA1.AAChapter 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, is 0 AN ACT relating to measures to prevent wrongful convictions. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTIONA.AAChapter, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended by adding Articles.0 and.

More information

Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Legal Director. A Day in the Life of a PD Lightstream Communications CLE

Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Legal Director. A Day in the Life of a PD Lightstream Communications CLE Marissa Boyers Bluestine, Legal Director A Day in the Life of a PD Lightstream Communications CLE Exonerations Nationwide 311 inmates have been exonerated through DNA. 5 of those have been exonerated posthumously.

More information

Supreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed]

Supreme Court significantly revised the framework for determining the. 221, 590 P2d 1198 (1979), in light of current scientific research and adopt[ed] I. The Oregon Evidence Code provides the first barrier to the admission of eyewitness identification evidence, and the proponent bears to burden to establish the admissibility of the evidence. In State

More information

Specialized Training: Investigating Sexual Abuse in Correctional Settings Notification of Curriculum Utilization December 2013

Specialized Training: Investigating Sexual Abuse in Correctional Settings Notification of Curriculum Utilization December 2013 Specialized Training: Investigating Sexual Abuse in Correctional Settings Notification of Curriculum Utilization December 2013 The enclosed Specialized Training: Investigating Sexual Abuse in Correctional

More information

The People of the State of New York. against. Ismael Nazario, Defendant.

The People of the State of New York. against. Ismael Nazario, Defendant. Decided on July 30, 2008 Supreme Court, Queens County The People of the State of New York against Ismael Nazario, Defendant. 3415/2006 William M. Erlbaum, J. The defendant was indicted in January of 2007

More information

Detentions And Photographing Detainees

Detentions And Photographing Detainees Policy 440 Detentions And Photographing Detainees 440.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for conducting field interviews (FI) and patdown searches, and the taking

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N. In accordance with the parties plea-bargain agreement, the trial court

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N. In accordance with the parties plea-bargain agreement, the trial court COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ADRIAN GUARDADO, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-14-00083-CR Appeal from the 171st Judicial District Court of El Paso County,

More information

DEVELOPING A COLLECTION PLAN FOR GATHERING VIDEO EVIDENCE

DEVELOPING A COLLECTION PLAN FOR GATHERING VIDEO EVIDENCE DEVELOPING A COLLECTION PLAN FOR GATHERING VIDEO EVIDENCE Filming for human rights can be dangerous. It can put you, the people you are filming and the communities you are filming in at risk. Carefully

More information

SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REVIEW OF POLICE DEPARTMENT ARREST AND INFORMATION RELEASE PROCEDURES: THREE CASES

SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REVIEW OF POLICE DEPARTMENT ARREST AND INFORMATION RELEASE PROCEDURES: THREE CASES 2002-2003 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REVIEW OF POLICE DEPARTMENT ARREST AND INFORMATION RELEASE PROCEDURES: THREE CASES Summary In response to a complaint concerning the release of arrest information

More information

LPG Models, Methods and Processes

LPG Models, Methods and Processes LPG1.7.04 Models, Methods and Processes Street Identification Student Notes Version 1.09 The NPIA is operating as the Central Authority for the design and implementation of Initial Police Learning for

More information

4600 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - CRIMINAL. B. Procedure

4600 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - CRIMINAL. B. Procedure 4600 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - CRIMINAL 1. While conducting investigations, employees shall diligently protect the constitutional rights of all persons with whom they come into contact, specifically, those

More information

Innocence Protections Proposal

Innocence Protections Proposal Innocence Protections Proposal presented to the Nevada State Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice June 14, 2016 by the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center Innocence Project Introduction Protecting

More information

SWGDOG SC 6 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN COURT

SWGDOG SC 6 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN COURT SWGDOG SC 6 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN COURT Posted for public comment 7/10/06 9/10/06. Approved by membership 10/2/06. 1 st Revision - Posted for Public Comment 5/24/10 7/22/10. Approved by membership

More information

2005 WISCONSIN ACT 60

2005 WISCONSIN ACT 60 Date of enactment: December 16, 2005 2005 Assembly Bill 648 Date of publication*: December 30, 2005 2005 WISCONSIN ACT 60 AN ACT to repeal 165.77 (2m) (a); to amend 165.77 (2m) (b), 165.81 (3) (b), 165.81

More information

Police Ride Alongs. In This Issue: Photograph Lineup. Pedestrian Infraction. Marijuana Odor on a Person

Police Ride Alongs. In This Issue: Photograph Lineup. Pedestrian Infraction. Marijuana Odor on a Person A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community Police Ride Alongs In This Issue: Photograph Lineup Pedestrian Infraction Marijuana Odor on a Person Legal Eagle Published by: Legal Eagle Services West

More information

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE

GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Before completing the questionnaire please note: You must not be currently represented by counsel and the crime and conviction must have occurred in Michigan.

More information

La Paz County Joint Investigation Outline

La Paz County Joint Investigation Outline La Paz County Joint Investigation Outline 1. A PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING JOINT INVESTIGATIONS ON EXTREMLY SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS (ESCA) A. Definitions Extremely Serious Conduct is defined as: ARS 13-3623

More information

Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify

Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify This guide is a gift of the United States Government PRACTICE GUIDE Prosecutor Trial Preparation: Preparing the Victim of Human Trafficking to Testify AT A GLANCE Intended Audience: Prosecutors working

More information

GUIDELINE 4: Incorporate migrants in prevention, preparedness, and emergency response systems

GUIDELINE 4: Incorporate migrants in prevention, preparedness, and emergency response systems GUIDELINE 4: Incorporate migrants in prevention, preparedness, and emergency response systems States and other stakeholders have laws, policies, and programs on prevention, preparedness, and emergency

More information

GUIDELINE 6: Communicate effectively with migrants

GUIDELINE 6: Communicate effectively with migrants GUIDELINE 6: Communicate effectively with migrants Migrants need to understand potential risks associated with a crisis, where and how to obtain assistance, and how to inform stakeholders of their needs.

More information

Constitution; Article I, Sections 19, 21, 23, 27, and 36, and Article XI, Section 2 of the. of and. A Rule 24 hearing was held on December 8,

Constitution; Article I, Sections 19, 21, 23, 27, and 36, and Article XI, Section 2 of the. of and. A Rule 24 hearing was held on December 8, NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) ) ) Defendant. ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY CONCERNING CERTAIN OUT-OF- COURT IDENTIFICATIONS

More information

11 Obtaining Informed Consent from Research Subjects

11 Obtaining Informed Consent from Research Subjects 11 Obtaining Informed Consent from Research Subjects No investigator conducting research under the auspices of the University of Virginia may involve a human being as a subject in research without obtaining

More information

CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS POLICY

CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS POLICY CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS POLICY Purpose The primary purpose of using body-worn-cameras (BWCs) is to capture evidence arising from police-citizen encounters. This policy sets forth

More information

City of Virginia Beach Police Department

City of Virginia Beach Police Department City of Virginia Beach Police Department Sex Offense Investigations Field Guide A Guide for Department Personnel Guidelines for handling preliminary & follow-up investigations of sexually related offenses

More information

The purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for release and dissemination of public information to news media.

The purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for release and dissemination of public information to news media. Policy Title: Law Enforcement Media Relations Accreditation Reference: Effective Date: October 15, 2014 Review Date: Supercedes: Policy Number: 3.70 Pages: 1.9.1 Attachments: October 15, 2017 April 26,

More information

Section: 2.310, Page 1 of 10 Effective: August 5, 2011 Reissued: 08/25/16. Towson University Police Department Manual of General Directives

Section: 2.310, Page 1 of 10 Effective: August 5, 2011 Reissued: 08/25/16. Towson University Police Department Manual of General Directives Section: 2.310, Page 1 of 10 2.310 EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION These directives are adapted from the Maryland Police Training Commission s eyewitness identification model policy. See also Public Safety (PS)

More information

CHAPTER 3 Section VIII 10/1/2016 Polygraph Policy

CHAPTER 3 Section VIII 10/1/2016 Polygraph Policy CHAPTER 3 Section VIII 10/1/2016 Polygraph Policy Purpose The polygraph examination is a valuable investigative aid as used in conjunctions with, but not as a substitute for, a thorough investigation.

More information

Analytical assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms

Analytical assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 25 January 2016 Original: English CAT/OP/1/Rev.1 Subcommittee

More information

Testimony of Claire P. Gutekunst President New York State Bar Association

Testimony of Claire P. Gutekunst President New York State Bar Association Testimony of Claire P. Gutekunst President New York State Bar Association Joint Legislative Public Hearing on the Proposed 2017-18 Public Protection Budget January 31, 2017 I am Claire P. Gutekunst, President

More information

WAYS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY 8CAN HELP YOUR CASE

WAYS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY 8CAN HELP YOUR CASE WAYS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY 8CAN HELP YOUR CASE You or a loved one was arrested for a crime in Texas. What happens next? The first step is hiring a qualified, experienced defense attorney. It s often

More information

GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE

GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE : ASSOCIATED MANUAL: CHIEF OF POLICE: REVISED DATE: 08/20/2018 RELATED ORDERS: NO. PAGES: 1of 9 NUMBER: Search and Seizure This

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : GEORGE VINCENT KUBIS, : : Appellant : No.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : GEORGE VINCENT KUBIS, : : Appellant : No. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : GEORGE VINCENT KUBIS, : : Appellant : No. 3347 EDA 2013

More information

HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST. a. Conscious Victim - If victim is conscious, attempt to obtain the following information:

HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST. a. Conscious Victim - If victim is conscious, attempt to obtain the following information: Here is a checklist for a homicide investigation. This is intended to be only a guide. Use what you can from the form. This is a great tool for the beginning investigator. HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DION BARNARD, No. 51, 2005 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for v. New Castle County STATE OF DELAWARE,

More information

HOW OUR LAWS ARE MADE

HOW OUR LAWS ARE MADE HOW OUR LAWS ARE MADE 52 nd LEGISLATURE of LIBERIA Joint Legislative Modernization Committee This program is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency

More information

What Is Criminal Intelligence?

What Is Criminal Intelligence? Information We are often concerned whether information we come by can be used by enforcement agencies as crime intelligence in order to target offenders suspected of committing offences. It makes no difference

More information

Law Enforcement Access to Patients and Information

Law Enforcement Access to Patients and Information Law Enforcement Access to Patients and Policy A02-04 Release of Patient That is Legally Mandated of Permitted states that disclosures that are required by law or permitted by law and are authorized by

More information

Dignity at Trial. Key Findings of the Czech National Report

Dignity at Trial. Key Findings of the Czech National Report Dignity at Trial Enhancing Procedural Rights of Persons with Intellectual and/or Psychosocial Disabilities in Criminal Proceedings Key Findings of the Czech National Report Czech Republic League of Human

More information

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES

POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RULES Subject: 1.2.1 Limits of Authority Effective Date: November 15, 2016 Reference: 41.2.7, 71.1.1, AR 12-9-102 Version:

More information

RAPTOR VISITOR IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM. Ov e rv i e w. Pr o c e d u r e s. Dripping Springs Independent School District Operating Procedures

RAPTOR VISITOR IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM. Ov e rv i e w. Pr o c e d u r e s. Dripping Springs Independent School District Operating Procedures RAPTOR VISITOR IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM Dripping Springs Independent School District Operating Procedures Index Page Topic 1 Overview 1 Procedures 2 Vendors/Contractors/Others 2 Match with the Database 3

More information

Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct for Judiciary Interpreters

Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct for Judiciary Interpreters Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct for Judiciary Interpreters Legal Authority In accordance with Act 172 of 2006 (42 Pa.C.S. 4411(e) and 4431(e)), the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania hereby

More information

Jan Hoth, for appellant. Meredith Boylan, for respondent. Innocence Project, Inc.; Legal Aid Society et al., amici curiae.

Jan Hoth, for appellant. Meredith Boylan, for respondent. Innocence Project, Inc.; Legal Aid Society et al., amici curiae. ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Key Considerations for Implementing Bodies and Oversight Actors

Key Considerations for Implementing Bodies and Oversight Actors Implementing and Overseeing Electronic Voting and Counting Technologies Key Considerations for Implementing Bodies and Oversight Actors Lead Authors Ben Goldsmith Holly Ruthrauff This publication is made

More information

1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal. accusation or indictment, no defense attorney shall be allowed to represent

1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal. accusation or indictment, no defense attorney shall be allowed to represent Form TJ-110, INSTRUCTION FOR CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS (Sections 6, 7, and 16, Rule 3, of the JSR) Recommendation: 1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal accusation or

More information

Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision

Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Privacy Policy Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System Version 3.0 Approved 04/23/2009 Revised on 4/18/2017 1.0 Statement of Purpose The goal of

More information

I Saw You but Did I Really?:

I Saw You but Did I Really?: I Saw You but Did I Really?: Eyewitness Identification Issues in Civil Cases Lori V. Berke Jody C. Corbett Berke Law Firm, PLLC 1601 N. 7th Street, Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85006 (602) 254-8800 lori@berkelawfirm.com

More information

Enforcement BYLAW, ARTICLE 19

Enforcement BYLAW, ARTICLE 19 BYLAW, ARTICLE Enforcement.01 General Principles..01.1 Mission of the Enforcement Program. It is the mission of the NCAA enforcement program to uphold integrity and fair play among the NCAA membership,

More information

manner would be a clear violation of Article 19 (protection of children from violence) and 3

manner would be a clear violation of Article 19 (protection of children from violence) and 3 Submission of the Child Rights International Network to the External Review Panel to Examine the United Nations handling of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Central African Republic In response to the incidents

More information

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY AND PROCEDURE # 105 SUBJECT: Identity Theft EFFECTIVE DATE: 16 June 2006 PAGE 1 OF 8 REVIEW DATE: 30 November 2017 APPROVED: CHANGE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2004 v No. 242027 Wayne Circuit Court RAPHAEL SANDERS, LC No. 01-012495-01 Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTER REGISTRATION IN SURRY COUNTY? HOW AND WHERE CAN I GET A VOTER REGISTRATION FORM OR CHANGE OF ADDRESS & PARTY FORM? DO I NEED TO RE-REGISTER

More information

Derbyshire Constabulary SIMPLE CAUTIONING OF ADULT OFFENDERS POLICY POLICY REFERENCE 06/122. This policy is suitable for Public Disclosure

Derbyshire Constabulary SIMPLE CAUTIONING OF ADULT OFFENDERS POLICY POLICY REFERENCE 06/122. This policy is suitable for Public Disclosure Derbyshire Constabulary SIMPLE CAUTIONING OF ADULT OFFENDERS POLICY POLICY REFERENCE 06/122 This policy is suitable for Public Disclosure Owner of Doc: Head of Department, Criminal Justice Date Approved:

More information

The Police Response to IPV Chapter 11 DR GINNA BABCOCK

The Police Response to IPV Chapter 11 DR GINNA BABCOCK The Police Response to IPV Chapter 11 DR GINNA BABCOCK Introduction Lack of consensus results in practices varying widely from state to state Lack of clear directions re how to handle complex problems

More information

Jeffrey I. Dellheim, for appellant. Patrick J. Hynes, for respondent. In this case, turning on the accuracy of eyewitnesses'

Jeffrey I. Dellheim, for appellant. Patrick J. Hynes, for respondent. In this case, turning on the accuracy of eyewitnesses' ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Introduction to the Main Amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC 1996 Professor Fan Chongyi China University of Politics and Law

Introduction to the Main Amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC 1996 Professor Fan Chongyi China University of Politics and Law Introduction to the Main Amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC 1996 Professor Fan Chongyi China University of Politics and Law The Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC was passed at the

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Pages 1-7 of The Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Pages 1-7 of The Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [T]he most fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is that an innocent man not be punished for the crimes of another. 1 The source of public confidence in our criminal justice

More information

NEW INFORMATION Ordinance Summary Note: Explanations of ordinance sections are in blue and ordinance language is in RED.

NEW INFORMATION Ordinance Summary Note: Explanations of ordinance sections are in blue and ordinance language is in RED. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Constituent Liaison/Public Policy Analyst DATE: November 25, 2014 RE: Improvements to Sexual Assault Evidence

More information

Standard Operating Procedure

Standard Operating Procedure Disclosure Scheme for Domestic Abuse Scotland (DSDAS) Standard Operating Procedure Notice: This document has been made available through the Police Service of Scotland Freedom of Information Publication

More information

Investigative Negligence. Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)

Investigative Negligence. Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007) Investigative Negligence Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007) By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. Niagara College Coordinator Police Foundations Program I. Commentary Part 1 Every police

More information

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 5.17

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 5.17 PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 5.17 Issued Date: 05-10-82 Effective Date: 05-10-82 Updated Date: 11-20-00 SUBJECT: WANTED PERSONS 1. POLICY *7 A. In all cases where the perpetrator has been identified,

More information

TEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. Amended Date June 1, 2017

TEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. Amended Date June 1, 2017 Effective Date February 1, 2008 Reference Amended Date June 1, 2017 Distribution All Personnel City Manager City Attorney TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Review Date January 1, 2018 Pages

More information

Preparing for Daubert Through the Life of a Case

Preparing for Daubert Through the Life of a Case Are You Up to the Challenge? By Ami Dwyer Meticulous attention throughout the lifecycle of a case can prevent a Daubert challenge from derailing critical evidence at trial time. Preparing for Daubert Through

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed August 8, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-1147 Lower Tribunal No. F06-39845

More information

GUIDING PRINCIPLES PRIVACY & INFORMATION SHARING IN CASES OF SEXUAL ABUSE & ASSAULT

GUIDING PRINCIPLES PRIVACY & INFORMATION SHARING IN CASES OF SEXUAL ABUSE & ASSAULT PRIVACY & INFORMATION SHARING IN CASES OF SEXUAL ABUSE & ASSAULT Gisela Ruebsaat B.A. LL.B. Keynote presentation: Collaborating to Keep Sexual Abuse & Assault Survivors Supported and Safe Empowering Partnerships

More information

NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL

NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL NH DIVISION OF LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT AND LICENSING ADMINISTRATION & OPERATIONS MANUAL CHAPTER: O-401 SUBJECT: Preliminary Investigations REVISED: August 14, 2009 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2007 DISTRIBUTION:

More information

Bowie City Police Department - General Orders

Bowie City Police Department - General Orders Bowie City Police Department - General Orders TITLE: VIDEO RECORDING OF POLICE ACTIVITY Activity EFFECTIVE DATE: 4/20/12 NUMBER: 448 REVIEW DATE: X NEW _ AMENDS _ RESCINDS DATE: AUTHORITY Chief John K.

More information

KANSAS COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS & TRAINING

KANSAS COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS & TRAINING Issue/Rev: March 27, 2013 Page 1 of 9 Issuing Authority: Executive Director Gary Steed I. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for response to domestic violence calls in compliance

More information

INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT

INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COURTESY COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT NOTES INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN TERRY v. OHIO (1968)

More information

CHAPTER 5. Prosecution. Duluth City Attorney s Office St. Louis County Attorney s Office. 2 The New Orleans Blueprint for Safety

CHAPTER 5. Prosecution. Duluth City Attorney s Office St. Louis County Attorney s Office. 2 The New Orleans Blueprint for Safety CHAPTER 5 Prosecution Duluth City Attorney s Office St. Louis County Attorney s Office 2 The New Orleans Blueprint for Safety Prosecution Duluth City Attorney s Office: Domestic Violence Policy Preface

More information